Literature DB >> 9586600

Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability.

G D Carlson1, C B Calvanese, H Kahane, J I Epstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the correlation of biopsy Gleason scores with radical prostatectomy specimens from a laboratory that uses protocols designed to minimize observer variability. This protocol mandates consensus case review of all nonbenign cases.
METHODS: Between August 24, 1993 and June 26, 1997, 106 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland had their prostate cancer diagnosed and graded at one laboratory (DIANON Systems). We analyzed the Gleason scores from the biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.
RESULTS: Exact correlation existed between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores for 72 (68%) cases; 103 (97%) correlated within 1 grade, all cases correlated within 2 grades; 26 (25%) biopsies were undergraded and 8 (8%) were overgraded. Positive predictive values for biopsy Gleason scores 5, 6, and 7 were 66%, 67%, and 71%, respectively. Grouped Gleason scores (well differentiated [2 to 4], moderately differentiated [5, 6], moderately to poorly differentiated [7], and poorly differentiated [8 to 10]) correlated exactly for 74 (70%) cases and within 1 group for all cases. Patient age, digital rectal examination results, total number of positive cores, and maximum percentage of tumor on biopsy did not affect correlation, but prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels did affect correlation (exact correlation 96% when the PSA level was less than 5 ng/mL; 50% when the PSA level was 11 ng/mL or greater, P <0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of experience and the protocol described minimizes intra- and interobserver variability, thereby improving the predictive value of biopsy Gleason grading. Biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores correlate more poorly when the PSA level is high (11 ng/mL or greater) than when the PSA level is low (less than 5 ng/mL).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9586600     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00002-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  16 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Burkhard Helpap; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Interactive digital slides with heat maps: a novel method to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading.

Authors:  Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Daniel M Berney; Liliane Boccon-Gibod; Eva Compérat; Andrew J Evans; Rainer Grobholz; Glen Kristiansen; Cord Langner; Gina Lockwood; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Rodolfo Montironi; Pedro Oliveira; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Ben Vainer; Murali Varma; Vincent Verger; Philippe Camparo
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason ≤ 6 on biopsy cores.

Authors:  Thomas Seisen; Françoise Roudot-Thoraval; Pierre Olivier Bosset; Aurélien Beaugerie; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre De La Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Detecting Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Marko Brock; Christian von Bodman; Jüri Palisaar; Wolfgang Becker; Philipp Martin-Seidel; Joachim Noldus
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 6.  Reproducibility and reliability of tumor grading in urological neoplasms.

Authors:  Rainer Engers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Risk stratification of men with Gleason score 7 to 10 tumors by primary and secondary Gleason score: results from the SEARCH database.

Authors:  David E Kang; Nicholas J Fitzsimons; Joseph C Presti; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: Are we getting better at predicting final pathology?

Authors:  Richard Walker; Uri Lindner; Alyssa Louis; Robin Kalnin; Marguerite Ennis; Michael Nesbitt; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Alexandre R Zlotta; Michael A S Jewett; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Clinical and pathological variables that predict changes in tumour grade after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Petros Perimenis
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Pathological correlation between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Muhammad A Bulbul; Yaser El-Hout; Maurice Haddad; Ayman Tawil; Ali Houjaij; Nizar Bou Diab; Oussama Darwish
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.